.jpg){kind=small}
mini.jpg)
Thanks to Steve Walt for noting an important University of Maryland poll of Iranian attitudes toward its elected government and the nuclear impasse (full report). Contrary to the claims of neocons and their fellow travelers in the media, academia and the halls of the Israel lobby, Iranians appear generally to support the current government and its approach to nuclear enrichment and research. While some of the findings disappointed me, given the amount of actual polling that was done inside Iran and other measures taken to ensure accuracy, I reluctantly grant a good deal of credibility to the survey.
Perhaps the most hopeful result was this:
Some analysts have suggested that if the opposition were to gain power this would lead to fundamental changes in the Iranian posture toward the US. Focusing on those respondents who said they voted for Mousavi, as an approximation of the opposition,
PIPA found that a majority were ready to negotiate with the US on a number of issues, while the Iranian public as a whole was more divided. However, Mousavi supporters, like the general public, were quite negative in their views of the US government and were strongly committed to Iran’s nuclear program.A majority of Mousavi supporters did favor diplomatic relations with the US, and were ready to make a deal whereby Iran would preclude developing nuclear weapons through intrusive international inspections in exchange for the removal of sanctions. However, this was equally true of the majority of all Iranians.
As Walt noted in his blog post, this provides an opening for resolving the current impasse: if the U.S. proposes full normalization of relations and removal of sanctions in return for an Iranian guarantee that it will not develop nuclear weapons–this should be a proposal the west could endorse.
So instead of the stupidity about sanctions and regime change, we need more reason and moderation in the form of this attitude expressed by the majority of Iranians according to this survey.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=017e31d5-3d03-4799-9c2f-33cc57a7ef39)
Related posts:
- House Republican: Deport Iranians
- Iran-Israel-U.S.: Resolving the Nuclear Impasse
- Barak: Nuclear Iran No Existential Threat to Israel
- Iran Nuclear Trigger Document a Forgery, Mossad Suspected
- J Street 2010 Poll of American Jews
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Tags: normalizing us-iran relations, Nuclear program of Iran, Nuclear weapon, regime change, sanctions, wmd
![Image of West-East Divan [DVD Video]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51MAqFcHK-L._SL110_.jpg "West-East Divan [DVD Video]")
Unfortunately, stopping all work on nuclear ‘weapons” which the Iranians may not even be working on, is hardly enough for Israel – which is dictating US policy on the matter. They also want Iran to stop support of hezbollah and hamas, and there’s no way the Iranians will ever be able to prove enough to the israelis their good intentions.
Gotta face the truth about Iran/israel – as bitter as it may be. It’s not about some non-existent nuclear weapons. It’s about the threat israel feels from a strong and well armed country that sits on top of some of the world’s best oil reserves. Israel’s goal is to weaken Iran so they can go after hezbollah with impunity, and essentially squash any hope palestinians may have of muslim support anywhere in the world.
Which means that there is going to be no let in the saber rattling, not now and not in the near term. The israeli policy will also be to weaken obama as much as possible so he will not feel able to carry out his preferred policy of negotiations. The hidden hand of israel is everywhere, as far as Iran is concerned. My prediction is that the US will impose unilaterally some sanctions – along with some – not all countries of the EU. Russia will pay lip service and china will balk. This will give israel the openning to start the bomb planning – some time in 2011, just after the congressional elections which may weaken the Obama administration just enough.
There is only one way out of this dire scenario. And that is another economic calamity. Nothing to wish for, but IMO, the economic collapse of 2008-2009 played a big role in Iran not having been bombed yet.
What are your thoughts on this, Richard? I’m afraid I just don’t see a way off the train wreck up ahead. Do you see a way out?
Hey,let’s give peace a chance. Isn’t it just possible that the NYT ad by Elie Weasel and all his laureate scientists might have put some fear into evil Iran? Israel won’t do anything so long as Hagee is on the team. Yuk, yuk.
I agree w. much of what you say. I think there’s a better than 50/50 chance Israel will bomb Iran. But not much more than that. There are too many factors that would complicate this for me to say for sure Israel will attack. But for sure Bibi must have a weak Obama as you say. I don’t know how they’re going to do sanctions when Iran’s 2 biggest trading partners refuse to go along. But yes, they’ll try.
“Iranians Willing to Forego Nuclear Weapons”
This implies of course, that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons when there is no evidence for it.
I understand. In the sense of this survey, the Iranians would give up a right (presumably future right) to create nuclear weapons in return for normalization.
That is a reasonable position. Of course, as I understand it under the NPT, to which Iran is a signatory, they don’t really have the right, present or future, to create nuclear weapons, but the sentiment behind the survey is positive. What they should NOT be willing to give up is their sovereign right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. They have exactly as much right to that as does any other country, and this is the right the United States, Israel, and their panting followers are trying to deny them.
Sorry Richard but you should not fall for the spin placed on the survey. The survey itself asked about enrichment, not nuclear weapons, and the Iranian responses clearly favored keeping enrichment. Furthermore, Iran has already agreed to “intrusive international inspections” to ensure that its not making nukes. It is called the IAEA. That’s the whole purpose of the existence of IAEA inspections. And they have concluded for many years that there’s no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. In fact Iran has allowed more inspections than required, and has offered to sign and ratify the Additional Protocol which would allow more stringent inspections (something Egypt, Argentina, brazil and others have flatly refused) but the US keeps insisting that Iran should have no enrichment capability, no matter how well inspected it may be.
There are diff. levels of IAEA inspections & the ones for Iran are not intrusive. I’m about to write a post about Iran tonight & one of the pieces of it will be Robert Wright’s op ed in the Times yesterday in which he suggested that Iran actually agree to intrusive inspections as part of a deal to normalize relations.
Can you point me to any statement verifying that Iran has offered to ratify the Additional Protocol?? Wright says that it hasn’t. If so, why it would require U.S. approval for it to sign? Unless you’re saying that Iran is willing to sign as part of a deal w. the U.S. which is possible.
Iran has already suspended the right to make nuclear weapons — it is called the Nonproliferation Treaty. However the US is demanding that Iran give up enrichment too, which is a right recognized by the same treaty (and guaranteed not only to iran but also many other countries that have rejected US attempts to create a monopoly over enrichment.)
I agree that the demand that Iran give up enrichment is bogus. Israel also demands ending enrichment. It’ll never happen. But demanding it makes Iran look bad when it refuses & that’s what Israel wants.
Iran tried to take steps to normalize relations after 9/11 but were rebuffed. Imagine how different our world might look had we gone down that path.
You are so right, Ilene. And Bashshar has made repeated overtures to Israel and the U.S., and has been rebuffed each time, despite Obama’s lukewarm gestures. History is filled with examples of The Chosen Enemy Du Jour attempting to reduce the tension with Israel and/or the U.S., and being rebuffed. If you think about it, you have to question who it is who really wants peace, and who it is who is trying to avoid it.
The analysts who suggest that the Iranian opposition could be a factor in the equation are not very good at analysing.
The Revolutionary Guard have such a financial vested interest in remaining part of the power bloc that they would never allow this to happen.
In fact there is a greater likelihood of the Guard seizing power from the Ayatollahs than of the opposition gaining power.